Maybe your driver doesn’t know how to optimize the storage properly, and therefore you won’t gain any speed by drawing in the different ways. Or maybe you are using the software renderer, or any kind of non-hardware accelerated environment, and the time you gain by drawing it in the different ways drowns in the huge amounts of time required to render the geometry in software.
Yeah sure, but those six triangles are draws 2.5 million times
Anways, the amound of triangles is still too small. If you clear your screen between each redraw, your time includes 2.5 million buffer resets aswell. And in slightly large resolution, this itself can be the majority of the time. Go for mcraighead’s idea and draw more triangles, but maybe as much as 100.000, and then render them only once, and measure the time.
As first …
"My English is good and i do not tolerate critic "
Originally posted by Bob:
Anways, the amound of triangles is still too small. If you clear your screen between each redraw, your time includes 2.5 million buffer resets aswell.
I have done it so …
glClear …
For 1…2500000 {
glTranslatef(-1,0,0)
Draw_My_Object}
But maybe my object is too simple for a noticeable effect. I will try more complex ones nearly …
I have found a similar problem with bitmap text (using glCallLists) - 15 lines of text half my FPS (ower screen transparent squares do not have such bad effect). Look …
try - Clear screen ~200FPS
try - Text only ~80FPS
try - Square only ~190FPS
try - Sqare+Text ~70FPS
… on 600x800x16 mode.
NB! Can this be a problem of drivers? If it is (that is hard to belive) what can i do?
NB! My texture objects are ~5 times as fast as normal ones. I mean, texture objects are (nearly) the same thing as display lists, what do think about this?
Originally posted by CS: But, is it really SO slow (look my results)?
In short, yes. Many drivers have horrible implementations of glBitmap. We’re not totally innocent here, but GeForce should offer “reasonable” Bitmap performance.